 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Masters v. Wilson5/10/2000
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
This cause was heard upon the record in the trial court. Each error assigned has been reviewed and the following disposition is made:
Plaintiff-Appellant, Elizabeth Masters, has appealed from a jury verdict awarding her $6,067.75 and the trial court's denial of her motion for a new trial. This Court affirms.
I.
On April 27, 1997, Plaintiff was injured when the right side of her car was struck by Defendant-Appellee, Genevie Wilson. Defendant admitted to her negligence, but disputed that she caused all of Plaintiff's injuries, arguing that Plaintiff did not seek out the necessary medical services to alleviate her pain and expedite her recovery from the injuries of the accident. On July 7, 1999, the case went to trial to determine the amount of damages proximately resulting from the accident.
During voir dire, Plaintiff asked the members of the panel if they felt comfortable awarding a large verdict of $300,000. A juror responded by inquiring whether Defendant had insurance. The trial court instructed the jury to disregard the issue of insurance. The court further noted that there were only two parties in the lawsuit, Plaintiff and Defendant. Neither Plaintiff nor Defendant objected to the trial court's instructions. Defendant reinforced the trial court's instructions by later stating that she was the only responsible party. Neither party mentioned the issue of insurance coverage again.
During Plaintiff's testimony, she made reference to the fact that she was having marital problems because of the accident. On her cross-examination, Defendant inquired whether her husband's conviction for racial intimidation had an adverse affect on her marriage. After Plaintiff denied the statement, her counsel objected, and the trial court instructed the jury to disregard the testimony. At no time did Plaintiff move for a mistrial.
The jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff for $6,067.75. In response to the set of interrogatories, the jury awarded Plaintiff the following: $2,067.75 for medical and hospital expenses; $1,000 for the nature and extent of her injury; $3,000 for pain and suffering experienced; $0 for future inability to perform usual activities; and $0 for future pain and suffering. On July 22, 1999, Plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court denied. Plaintiff timely appealed, asserting three assignments of error.
II.
A.
Assignment of Error Number One
The Trial Court erred when it instructed the Jury that there was only one Defendant in the case in dealing with the issue of insurance which constitutes plain error.
In her first assignment of error, Plaintiff has asserted that the trial court erred when it instructed the jury during voir dire that there was one defendant in the case. Because Plaintiff failed to object to the trial court's instruction, she has argued that this Court should review her assigned error under the plain error doctrine. This Court disagrees.
The Ohio Supreme Court has held that any error, which arose during the course of trial and is not objected to, is waived and may not be reviewed on appeal. Goldfuss v. Davidson (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 116, 121. In Goldfuss, the Ohio Supreme Court stated that:
In appeals of civil cases, the plain error doctrine is not favored and may be applied only in the extremely rare case involving exceptional circumstances where error, to which no objection was made at the trial court, seriously affects the basic fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial process, thereby challenging the legitimacy of the under
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|